From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Oct 25 09:05:38 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA28588
          for current-outgoing; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 09:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iworks.InterWorks.org (deischen@iworks.interworks.org [128.255.18.10])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA28560;
          Fri, 25 Oct 1996 09:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iworks.InterWorks.org
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA12096; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:03:47 -0500
Message-Id: <9610251603.AA12096@iworks.InterWorks.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:03:47 -0500
From: "Daniel M. Eischen" <deischen@iworks.InterWorks.org>
To: dpr@elsevier.co.uk
Subject: Re: Experiences with CDE for FreeBSD
Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, questions@freebsd.org
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > Other than the above problems, everything else seems to be working
> > just fine.  It looks very professional and just like CDE on 
> > Solaris 2.5 - even the pretty login window.
>
> Is it as slow :-)
>
> Hmm, actually, really, how's performance, I quite liked CDE but the
> Sparc 5 at work was really sluggish but it might just have been that
> Solaris couldn't cope with CDE rather than CDE itself. CDE seemed to
> have a large memory footprint and I've noticed that Solaris isn't very
> happy unless it's got lots of headroom memory wise.

It's not slow on our Sparc 10s and 20s.  But we do have anywheres from
64MB to 128MB RAM on them.

My FreeBSD CDE system is an old 90MHz Neptune chipset system, but
I recently upgraded it to 64MB RAM (before I purchased CDE).  It
isn't slow and seems pretty responsive.

Dan Eischen
deischen@iworks.InterWorks.org